Patient satisfaction with different types of craniofacial prostheses
Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 27, 2025
A Postoperative Evaluation Guideline for Computer-Assisted Reconstruction of the Mandible
Published on: January 28, 2020
Kevin M Higgins1, Kassandra Gressmann2, Bernie Yan3
1Physician, Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Statement Of Problem:
A maxillofacial prosthesis represents an effective method of giving maxillofacial defects a positive esthetic appearance with minimal risk. However, studies of complications among prosthesis wearers are lacking.
Purpose:
The purpose of this cross-sectional study was to determine levels of patient satisfaction with various maxillofacial prostheses and retention types, as measured through a survey questionnaire package.
Material And Methods:
Patients treated at the Sunnybrook Health Sciences Center Craniofacial Prosthetics Unit (CPU) since 2015 were included. They had been treated according to a standardized protocol and answered a survey questionnaire package with the following sections: demographics, frequency of prosthesis usage, and the Toronto Outcome Measure for Craniofacial Prosthetics (TOMCP-27) survey addressing patient satisfaction. To be eligible for this study, patients must have been more than 18 years of age, in possession of a maxillofacial prosthesis, and received treatment at the Sunnybrook Health Sciences Center CPU since 2015.
Results:
A total of 157 patients were eligible and contacted, of whom 51 agreed to participate in the survey. The study population was overall extremely satisfied with their maxillofacial prostheses. In 77.8% of the TOMCP-27 questions, the largest group of patients chose the answer demonstrating the highest level of satisfaction. Of all prosthesis types surveyed, patients with auricular prostheses reported the greatest rates of satisfaction, with the entire group having selected answers corresponding to the highest levels of overall satisfaction. However, patients with orbital prostheses were more likely to experience varying degrees of dissatisfaction, with 72% of the highest reported levels of dissatisfaction being from this prosthesis group. In addition, patients with osseointegrated implant-retained prostheses reported higher satisfaction levels with other retention methods, with the bar clasp group outperforming the magnetic coupling retention group.
Conclusions:
Patients experienced an excellent overall rate of satisfaction with their maxillofacial prostheses. Future development should focus on the continued development of osseointegrated methods, improved magnetic coupling, and improved prosthesis technology, especially for orbital prostheses.
